Saburu, the history may have been born out of malice (although I seriously think that it was just an abbreviation which represented a people that the US hated at the time...much worse words could have been chosen).
I am looking at it linguistically. Words have a taboo power only if they are rarely used. The word F**k has almost lost that power because it is used far more commonly today than in the past.
Your example doesn't stand up to examination. The Nazis used a reverse swastika, (although most people would probably not know the difference these days), but the point is that in your example, a young jewish man WOULD know the significance of the symbol and the effect it would have by posting it up on a synagogue.
The question I'm asking is whether the word 'Jap' is one of those words/symbols. It may be disparaging in the US, but in the UK I think not so much (although polite people here would never say that word to a japanese person unless we knew he or she would not take offense).
In my family in England, we would talk about going to the 'chinky' to pick up a chinese meal, or going to the 'paki shop' to get some ciggarettes, using the word more as a shorthand than anything derogatory.
On the subject of AA, I think that both mt and Wulfie have hit the nail on the head in both of their posts. The disadvantage that minorties suffer is not even being given the chance. In the case of the US, it was really the second world war that gave blacks the respect they deserved (and even after that they had to fight for equal recognition). AA is important when the playing field is so skewed that minorities don't even get a look in, because, as Lasz said, 'if they came to me for a job, I would be nice to them, but I would put a line through their name.' So the only way to right the balance is not to have the Lasz's of the world have the choice. And over time, when people don't have the choice but to hire minorties, their views change. Which is what has happened in the US since the 60s.
But Wulfe is also right. I think that now the playing field is more or less balanced and the risks of minorities using the 'race card' to get an unfair advantage is (in my experience) reasonably high. And if the playing field is reasonably level and Lasz wants to put a line through someone's name because he happens to be black, then fine, there ought to be enough jobs that black person can go and find someone else and Lasz can live the life he chooses by isolating himself from people he feels he does not relate to.
It's all a question of balance, and depth of choice.
My belief is that the US should get away from AA and just have race discrimination laws that apply to everybody....so (as I have seen so often cited here as an example) if a white person wants to enter a 'Ms Black America' contest, then by all means let her. And if they don't let her join, then the organisers ought to be answerable for being discriminatory.
I originally come from a country (Malaysia) where AA has been ruinious. Malaysia has three ethnic populations: Chinese, Malays and Indians. Traditionally the Malays have been rural and very poor, the Chinese economically successful and urban and the Indians mostly poor but with some in the professional classes.
AA was brought in (after race riots in 1969) to help the Malays. This meant that a Malay passes an exam at 45% whereas an Indian or Chinese passes the same exam at 55%. All companies in Malaysia MUST have at least a 30% shareholding of Malays. Malay students get all expenses paid scholarships (on the taxpayer's money) to places like Australia, the US and England.
The result? The Malays expect life to be handed to them on a plate, some work hard but not most. If the government ever even makes an indication that it's going to change its policy on this, they will be voted out of office. This is not a good way to carry on.
Ravs
